I'm thinking about ditching my amps and cables and just buying an active speaker with a balanced input. I have a Krell 2250 and a pair of 140 watt Atma-sphere MA-1MKII. I desperately need speakers and cables, but not sure if I want to go through the bother (and expense) of finding the perfect matching set.
Should I go with a speaker & amp that are already matched or keep building my system like a bespoke smorgasbord?
I just got Paul Spelt's ZERO-Box with a custom built set of ANTICABLES & they are so incredible - even without the 100 hour suggested burn in period.
My Sound Stage just BLEW UP and I now have the system of my dreams!
It was like getting a free upgrade for every component in my system because everything sounds so much better - and that is saying a lot considering the gear I was already using.
My current system looks like this:
Cable Box or Apple t.v. (both using optical outputs) Cambridge Audio DACMagic (not an expensive piece & probably my next upgrade)
"10-04-15: Rogerstillman I just bought a pair of used Vandersteen 3A Signatures. I have them on my Krell (out of expediency) and love the bass, but I'm not getting a broad soundstage. Once I put my tube gear on that should change."
I have a pair of Model 3's myself. To get the soundstage you want, keep in mind that all of the components in the system, are equally responsible for this. You can have a bunch of great imaging pieces, but can still mess it up with just 1 poorly matched component. Also, tubes aren't required. The decision to buy a tube amp or preamp should be based on sound quality, not just because its a tube product. The best imaging I've heard from SS is Ayre. That's what I currently use on my 3's. When you are ready to upgrade, demo some Ayre products and see if they are for you.
When you get the speakers, follow the setup instruction listed in the manual. Its very important to do it this way if you want best sound. For cables, AQ Type 6 or Type 8 work very well with your speakers, and they are not expensive. Just make sure you double biwire with 2 separate runs of cable.
I just bought a pair of used Vandersteen 3A Signatures. I have them on my Krell (out of expediency) and love the bass, but I'm not getting a broad soundstage. Once I put my tube gear on that should change.
"09-30-15: Rogerstillman zd542, I agree that change for the sake of change alone is not good, but wouldn't you rather have a system that you could grow into as your needs, taste, and budget change? I'm just proposing an alternate path to building a system. "
I already have this. You're assuming a line array is the best way to achieve your goals. It may be for you, and that's perfectly OK.
That said, I'll give you my opinion on this. If you start isolating certain features, giving them more importance over others, you're playing with fire. There's much more going on between the the amp and speakers that are beyond the scope of line array advantages/disadvantages. I would take a balanced approach and consider them all equally.
"Meridian have been doing the active thing longer than almost anyone. The DSP 8000 is truly worked class, the DSP7200 competes with Wilson Sasha/B&W 802 etc and the often overlooked DSP5200 is highly underrated."
I have some experience with Meridian. I've owned some of they're components, and my best friend is a Meridian fanatic. He's a scumbag lawyer and can afford the best stuff they make.
To make a long story short, we got into an argument when I told him my Vandersteen's sound better than his expensive Meridian speakers. They were at least 50k. I offered to put them side by side for comparison, and he agreed. He was also under the assumption that I was going to bring over all my best stuff. Instead, I brought over a pair of Model 2's, just 1 of my Ayre V-5's and my Wadia 302.(I also have an 861SE). Cables were 2 runs of AQ CV-8, Balanced AQ Cheetah, and 2 ESP Essence PC's.
The only things the Meridian could do better was play louder and go deeper in the bass. In every other aspect, we both thought my system was clearly the winner. And the reason I won is because my system had the better matched components. They just weren't inside the speaker. Meridian can't design an amp as good as my Ayre, and speakers as well as Vandersteen.
Try auditioning some of the Meridian line of speakers. Each is right at the front of mixed systems in their price range and are absolute bargains at their used prices. Meridian have been doing the active thing longer than almost anyone. The DSP 8000 is truly worked class, the DSP7200 competes with Wilson Sasha/B&W 802 etc and the often overlooked DSP5200 is highly underrated. Go listen see for yourself.
1. To hear 100% of the sound with only 2% that is perfect or 2. Hear only 2% of the sound perfectly, but miss the other 98%?
Assuming you have enough SPL to fill the room is it better 1. To add another amp and speaker or 2. To buy two more speaker and run them on the amp you have?
One friend drove a Lamborghini to RMAF and sat in the sweet spot in the best room at the show. One friend drove a golf cart to RMAF and sat in the parking lot and listened to AM radio. Who do you think enjoyed the show more? The guy in the parking lot because it's legal in Colorado and you can't smoke inside.
Chew on this: Those of you with colossal amplifiers running two speaker systems are the sonic equivalent of a Lamborghini on a mini golf course. You still look great at 3 MPH, but you have no idea hood good things get once you get on the autobahn.
zd542, I agree that change for the sake of change alone is not good, but wouldn't you rather have a system that you could grow into as your needs, taste, and budget change? I'm just proposing an alternate path to building a system.
Wouldn't it be nice to upgrade one part of the speaker without having to trash the whole speaker system and start over?
I will probably get wonked on the head for saying this, but I'm going to make this argument anyway:
A Line Array of speakers is more efficient and makes better use of the amplifier than non-arrayed speaker. Sonic qualities aside the main job of an amp is to move drivers which push air.
Most class A amps convert their power into heat. The bigger the line array, the more the amp can breath and do its job which isn't heating your room.
At every power level you will hear more and appreciate your amp and music more as your line array get bigger.
" if a speaker builder went that route and allowed the home consumer to choose a line sub, a line mid and a line tweet - instead of putting it all in one box, it would provide for upgradeability in the future and unlimited configurations. "
Upgrade-ability and unlimited configurations can only promise changes, and not better sound quality.
I'm thinking about ditching my amps and cables and just buying an active speaker with a balanced input. I have a Krell 2250 and a pair of 140 watt Atma-sphere MA-1MKII. I desperately need speakers and cables, but not sure if I want to go through the bother (and expense) of finding the perfect matching set.
Should I go with a speaker & amp that are already matched or keep building my system like a bespoke smorgasbord?
Pragmatically it comes down to the implementation of either way more than the inherent virtues of one "principle" alone. On paper the advantages of active (+ DAC/DSP) speakers are rather obvious and appeals to me a lot, and I would indeed love to go that route should the right (speaker-)combination come along (this is a tempting solution, but too expensive for my wallet I'm afraid: http://hometheaterreview.com/meyer-sound-x-10-powered-loudspeakers/), but for now the right speaker-part of the active combo evades me.
All things being equal, and at the present DSP-technological state, I'd rather avoid passive cross-overs altogether; going radical about it one could pursue an alternative DIY-solution with the passive speakers fitting ones sonical bill and wreck them apart, more or less - at least as a means to by-pass the passive cross-over, connect each driver to their dedicated amp-channel, and let a DSP handle the cross-over duties. I've heard this conversion (from passive to active DSP) go extremely well in setup of a friend of mine, to the point really where there's no comparison, but it takes skill and patience to get there. Perhaps the active solution is much more of an obvious, preferred choice with cheaper solutions where incredible value can be had in such all-in-one systems (see JBL LSR 305/308, among many others).
Have stood at the crossroad of active or passive myself, the former from an outset with my existing speakers, but have chosen to go the latter route based on new, upcoming and highly sensitive speakers (~106-107dB's). I believe both paths would've been exhilarating to try out though - if only one could've. Merging other product categories seems more prudent here, like DAC and preamp for example, and focusing solely on one source (digital, in this case) to max out the fullest potential with the financial means available.
Finally then: in your case I'd seek out some potential active and/or otherwise combined solutions, listen to them closely where possible and preferable, and see whether the totality of sonic impressions go beyond that which passive, "discrete" solution can muster. You may find youself surprised, one way or the other.
BTW, doing 20hz is not always the most important criteria IMO, for that matter many loudspeakers do that.
Agreed, but as a manufacturer with a need for a reference, while that is not the most important criteria, its not acceptable if the bandwidth isn't there. Our amps go to 2Hz with full power and we want to know what's up when we play them. Plus the bass is really nice :)
In other words, could the "brightness/hardness" effect you point out be a byproduct of the Class AB design that some of the better designers are able to greatly reduce or even eliminate?
'Brightness and hardness' is a product of trace (0.005%) amounts of distortion, often containing the 7th harmonic. The ear is very sensitive to the 7th harmonic as it uses it (and others) as loudness cues to determine how loud a sound is. The ear/brain system converts all forms of distortion into tonality. That is why an amp can sound bright but measure flat on the bench.
Building a Line Array of Speakers might be too much to ask of most home users, but if a speaker builder went that route and allowed the home consumer to choose a line sub, a line mid and a line tweet - instead of putting it all in one box, it would provide for upgradeability in the future and unlimited configurations.
Other manufactures might also jump in and provide even more options.
Al, combo filtering effect can not be ignored and I agree that a homogenous set of speakers would sounds best (on paper), but at least in my case the befits out weighted that particular set back.
Audiophiles bi-amplify. Do they build line array speakers with mismatching parts? For instance, a pair of subs, a pair of mids & a pair of tweets - all from different manufactures?
Is that audio heresy or can that be done the way wine and cheese are matched and paired with each other?
Can you achieve more audio performance by using a line array of speakers than you could with just one speaker?
I think the answer is YES because you can alway take the best and then add just a little bit more to make it better, regardless of what it says on paper.
While many transistor advocates say their amps are neutral, I've yet to hear one that does not impart a coloration- that of brightness and hardness.
Ralph, I have owned three, the Class A Clayton M300 and M200 monoblocks and the Acoustic Imagery Atsah Ncore NC1200 monos. Maybe in comparison to certain tubed amplifiers there is a quality that some may call hardness but, in comparison to other SS amplifiers I have owned and heard, those amps mentioned would not be considered hard-sounding. IMO, none of the three would be considered "bright" sounding.
Unfortunately, I have yet to hear a perfect amplifier since all I have heard have sonic and operational trade-offs. I have owned some quite good SS Class AB amplifiers that have a hint of the brightness/hardness traits you mentioned but that were otherwise excellent. Since I notice this more after my last three amplifiers being Class A designs, and one Class D, I have wondered if maybe I am now more sensitive to crossover effects in class AB designs. In other words, could the "brightness/hardness" effect you point out be a byproduct of the Class AB design that some of the better designers are able to greatly reduce or even eliminate?
BTW, doing 20hz is not always the most important criteria IMO, for that matter many loudspeakers do that. I agree though that if one is focussed on having a tube amplification then active speakers are not available ready made.
The Braun L200 is plentiful on the used market. I recommend you get a minimum of six (6) pairs (or more) and stack them on their sides such that the tweeters are vertically aligned. You will have a DIY line array. You will have to experiment with whether the tweeters are inside or outside aligned. You could even turn one the L200 pair backwards to generate some rear ambiance soundfield. Wire it up appropriately and run them with the Atmasphere and you will be in audio heaven with a unique system with a capital U. I'm dead serious.
Atmasphere, why don't you build an active system? Team up with someone like CAR and come out with a fully integrated bi/tri-amped, all analog system. Can you imagine the glow coming off six of your mono amps? The price tag would breach $100k, but I think in today's market that could be a positive selling point. Have it go head to head with an MBL or Focal/Naim systems.
You could scale this up and the sound would just get bigger and sound better wouldn't it, as long as you kept the load reasonable.
No, I don't think so, Roger. The problem that would arise is that the same sound would be arriving at the listener's ears at multiple times, due to the different path lengths to the various speakers, and probably also due to different signal delays within the speakers and their crossover networks. That will degrade the sound as a result of what are known as comb filtering effects.
I'm having a lot of fun wiring speakers together. I have two in series and one running in parralel per channel on one amp at 12 Ohms - all PASSIVE.
The sum sounds more than the parts, if you align things right. I have my cabinets mostly laid on their sides closer to ear level and stacked up in walls of sound.
You could scale this up and the sound would just get bigger and sound better wouldn't it, as long as you kept the load reasonable.
I've yet to see an active speaker do what mine do. Which is to say my speakers go down to 20Hz and yet are very easy to drive (98 db 1 watt/1 meter) and are very detailed (employing field coil drivers, which are to the dynamic cone world what ESLs are to the planar world).
Are there any actives that go to 20Hz properly?
While many transistor advocates say their amps are neutral, I've yet to hear one that does not impart a coloration- that of brightness and hardness. OTOH, I don't really go for that 2nd harmonic that tubes are known for and while it may come as a surprise to some, tube equipment does not have to have high distortion or even the second harmonic- that is all in the design. I say this simply as I have yet to see an active that uses a tube amp built-in.
Im considering Dynaudio xeo4 and Focus 200 XD as pretty much complete system and any insights would be greatly appreciated. Wish I could go to RMAF :-(
"Zd, to say that engineering expertise and technical resources is irrelevant is an extreme statement. If high fidelity sound reproduction is the goal, then the manufacturer and the consumer just can't be that far apart."
If that's what you think I meant, I didn't do a good job explaining my point. If I read your post correctly, you said its always beneficial and important for the customer to be as close to the level of the designers technical ability as possible. While it can't hurt, I just don't think its necessary to achieve the best possible results. All designers have a different idea as to what good sound is. That applies to the consumer as well. No one is more capable of building your system than you. Your own technical ability won't have an effect how much you like your system. Listening is the dominate factor. Its no different than saying a race car mechanic needs to be a race car driver himself, or an aircraft engineer has to be able to fly the F-16 he's helping build.
"From an engineering perspective how does R. Vandersteen justify the powered woofers in his upmarket loudspeakers?"
He doesn't have to. He would have to do more explaining if he didn't power his subs. The vast majority of sub's, both internal and stand alone, are powered. Its an industry standard practice. It gives the buyer more options, not less. Powering the bass speaker on something like a Model 5, allows for a much broader range of amp options. A lot of people use low powered tube amps on their 5's. Chances are, those amps wouldn't be a realistic option otherwise.
" Wouldn't the same rationale apply to the midrange and treble drivers?"
It depends on how you look at it, but I would say no. The application is different. Almost all of the musical detail is in the mids and highs. Low frequencies just don't have the same level of resolution. Think about what you go through when setting up a system. To dial in the bass, the main adjustment is to move the speakers around the room until you find the best spot. Mids and highs are different. Things like toe in, back tilt and specific areas of the room, like the first reflection, need to be dealt with. (I understand that there are other factors involved, and maybe even some overlap. Its just not practical to go over every single detail on a forum like this.
"From a marketing perspective it could be sales suicide since audiophiles basically reject fully powered loudspeaker systems. I'm just saying that the rejection is not based upon sound quality, but upon the perceived lack of upgradeability."
That may be the case sometimes, but not always. For he most part, its about sound quality. Your case will apply to people that shortcut the evaluation process. Buying from reviews, no demo..., and other similar short cuts. Others will put the time in to listen and evaluate before making a purchase. In my own experience, I've put many modest component systems next to expensive, active speaker systems, and was able to get much better SQ from the budget system.
Rogerstillman, does the no box loudspeaker w/ DSP that you are considering have a model name and manufacturer?
Zd, to say that engineering expertise and technical resources is irrelevant is an extreme statement. If high fidelity sound reproduction is the goal, then the manufacturer and the consumer just can't be that far apart.
From an engineering perspective how does R. Vandersteen justify the powered woofers in his upmarket loudspeakers? Wouldn't the same rationale apply to the midrange and treble drivers? From a marketing perspective it could be sales suicide since audiophiles basically reject fully powered loudspeaker systems. I'm just saying that the rejection is not based upon sound quality, but upon the perceived lack of upgradeability.
Martykl, I like your hybrid crossover set up. Are you all solid state?
If you had a tube amp on the passive crossover and a solid state on the active crossover, do you think the mid/bass frequencies (or wherever the crossovers meet) would blend well?
I'm considering a speaker with passive crossovers & Digital Signal Processing. It's very popular on Audiogon right now and it has an open baffle design.
I'm very interested in these, but I'm concerned that I might loose some of the sonic qualities I like about tube sound.
Is that a valid concern or should I not worry about it?
I'm keeping my tube amp & pre-amp, but I would consider an active speaker for a second system or perhaps as a compliment to my tubes.
There should be no doubt that active systems allow lower levels of IM distortion. It is also fair to say "So what?"....if you believe that IM distortion isn't particularly important. The advantage is still real, tho it will - like most things audio - vary in importance to a given listener. BTW, small active desktop systems can be strikingly good values, for, I believe, just this reason. Obviously, the bandwidth and spl limitations limit their utility.
The biggest problem with active systems in my book is that the selection is limited. Further, the limited # of choices is further narrowed by the fact that most are designed for pro use and are designed to meet those specific needs. Other than the Linkwitz designs, it's hard to find an active system that is dipolar. I don't know of any that are omnidirectional.
I currently use omnis with subs (a hybrid set-up where the mid to bass x-over is active, but the mid to tweeter x-over is passive) in my main system. The passive x-over sits at a highish frequency, so there's no passive x-over directly in the mids. It's a formula that works for me.
In the past, I've gone with fully active systems and fully passive systemsin my listening room. Each has its advantages and - at the moment - I've settled on a compromise. However.....
I also use Sonos for distributed music throughout my home. Five of my Sonos zones use active monitors because I like their "bang for the buck". My own view is that active systems offer compelling value at lower price points. If you're price constrained and are happy with conventional dispersion, active systems definitely deserve a hard look, IMO.
As you spend more and your options expand, personal preference starts to muddy the decision process.
Rogerstillman, try to audition an Active ATC SCM-100. You will know what a top flight active speaker can do that a passive combo cannot even at 4 times the price.
I have had a pair of dynaudio bm5 II about 10 years ago... They were alright even though they sounded a bit boxy, and limited in dynamics when played louder than normal conversation level. I would have preferred the equivalent hifi version with a beefy nad integrated.
"They are carefully matched to achieve maximum performance by design teams with more resources to accomplish that goal than the average audiophile has available. Apparently this is a difficult concept for audiophiles to accept."
That's because you're leaving something out. I have absolutely no doubt that the designers of the active speakers you list, do everything they can to make the best sounding product. Its not that audiophiles won't accept a solution like this just because the speakers are active. For the most part, a decision is made based on sound quality/personal preference. Its entirely possible that even though the speakers look good on paper, a potential buyer just doesn't like them. No different than with any other component. Also, when you say that design teams have more resources to achieve the goal than an average audiophile, I don't see that as being relevant. That statement assumes the buyer and the maker, want the same exact end result. That may not be the case. An audiophile's part in all this, is to evaluate products they are interested in, and then make a choice based on they think sounds the best, and can afford.
The last time this topic came up for debate, I used this same example to explain my position. My personal preference is Vandersteen speakers powered by Ayre electronics. If I wanted to get the equivalent sound from an active speaker, I can't. No active speaker that I know of, even comes close to duplicating that combo's sound. It has nothing to do with me not wanting active speakers. If Ayre and Vandersteen got together made such a speaker, chances are I would buy it.
All this comes down to one idea. And that is, what will make you happy with your system? Different products for different people. That's how its always been, and I don't think it will change anytime soon.
In addition to the Grimm, Steinway Lyndorf and Linkwitz active systems I mentioned in an earlier post, here are some other active loudspeaker systems that can compete with any passive/power amp combo for their intended application and within their price ranges:
Unity Audio Boulder (amps designed by Tim de Paravicini) Genelec 1037 Augspurger 215 Classics w/ subs ATC SCM110 Avant Garde Zero
Anyone can couple a power amp to a loudspeaker and there are some powered loudspeakers that are that simple, but the loudspeakers I've listed are systems. They are carefully matched to achieve maximum performance by design teams with more resources to accomplish that goal than the average audiophile has available. Apparently this is a difficult concept for audiophiles to accept.
I see how adding an active crossover might cause some time delay or other coloration, but if they are built by a good component builder with matched parts that would go a long way, no?
I like the theory of active crossovers and I'm would imagine some are made better than others. But, going this route sounds like it could be hazardous because of zd542's concerns.
Can anyone show me a finished system with an Active Crossover?
It would be nice to see solid state, tube & hybrid (solid state & tube) designs.
How easy are these systems to live with?
Do you have to constantly fiddle with the crossover frequencies & gains for each one or can you just sit back and spin the volume control up & down for the whole system?
I know some one is going to tell me, it depends on the room. :~)
"But, more importantly is that having the crossover before the amp automatically reduces intermodulation distortion of the speaker system. Each driver in an active speaker will have its own matched amplifier. There is no reason to incur the cost of a general purpose amp that is designed to power all manner of speakers."
That's not true. There's always a cost for singling out 1 specific potential problem or spec, and highlighting it in a way that makes it look like its more important than the others. Following that logic, a cheap pair of active speakers should sound better just because the active nature of the xover, than a cost no object design. IM comes up in all areas of component design, and is not isolated to one specific part. Just using an active speaker will not eliminate IM distortion. It can't.
What makes a great component is the designer; not the design itself. There's a reason most people will buy a Pass or Ayre amp (Or whatever else is equivalent), than settle for a generic powered speaker, active or passive. Better sound quality. Same thing with speakers. I remember the last time you brought this topic up Bob, you mentioned Vandersteen speakers. I forget exactly what you said, but your idea would have made the Vandersteen speaker loose its time and phase characteristics. You didn't have a problem with that. I do, because that's the whole reason you buy them in the first place. Vansersteen goes to great lengths to eliminate FIM, by the way.
I'll ask you the same question that I asked you last time. You couldn't answer it then, and I don't think you can answer it now. Give us an actual example where a specific active speaker, that you recommend, can outperform a separate amp/speaker combo made by top designers in their respected fields? If you'll notice, I'm not putting too many restrictions on what you can come up with, including cost, so it should be an easy question to answer. I've made this comparison many times and have yet to find any evidence that would suggest an active speaker design is superior, or even equal, to a well matched amp/speaker combo.
I've owned both active (linn) and passive systems and found that passive better suits my personality - in that it allows me to mix and match, buy and sell equipment.
A good active system does many things well, and probably the best option for someone who doesn't want to play the audiophile game.
I suspect that most of us do however enjoy the challenge of putting together our ideal system with the pieces that we want.
I think if you compare high quality active and passive systems, you will be pleased with both. If you like to tinker, then I think you will get bored with an active system.
I too am interested in following the Kii speaker and would like to hear them. They are a fully active speaker with six drivers; six nCore amps; full DSP control and controlled dispersion that improves on time-delayed reflections. They are also said to go quite deep for a monitor sized speaker.
Any of you who go to RMAF, be sure to check out the Kii being launched by GTT Audio & Video in Room 537, and please report back. In the meantime, here is some more information. DAR blog with Srajan Ebaen
Roger, another point to keep in mind when connecting speakers in series is to be sure to connect the + (usually red) and - (usually black) terminals of the amp and speakers correctly. The proper way for a series connection of two speakers is as follows:
Amplifier (+) to Speaker 1 (+)
Speaker 1 (-) to Speaker 2 (+)
Speaker 2 (-) to Amplifier (-)
It doesn't matter which speaker is connected as speaker 1 and as speaker 2.
If you don't do that correctly it won't damage anything. But the sound will definitely suffer, assuming the two pairs of speakers are in the same room, or at least if both speakers can be heard at the same time.
Please check out their website, speakers and read the English translation of the review just published in the German Audio Mag. They say its the best sound they have ever heard in over 30 years of testing. $14,000 a pair here in the US...just starting to ship....19 cycle bass from a 35 lb. monitor.....6 servoed Ncore amps in each box....
There will be even better things like this is the future. Imagine larger with Raal Tweeter and custom ceramic/diamond mids and even better amps....Yowzer! Active speakers will slowly take over the world...he he.
I'm not sure if there IS an active speaker than can compete with high end tube gear, but some of the PMC studio monitors look like they could blow my house down when standing on their subs.
I haven't heard them, but wonder what these sound like:
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
